arxiv: 2605.06101 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Syndrome resampling enhances quantum error correction thresholds

Luis Colmenarez , \'Aron M\'arton , Markus M\"uller

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords quantum error correctionsyndrome resamplingsurface codeslogical error rateserror thresholdsRényi coherent informationfault tolerancedecoders

0 comments

The pith

Syndrome resampling increases quantum error correction thresholds by biasing averages toward the most probable syndromes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces syndrome resampling as a general post-processing step that improves quantum error correction performance. It works by generating new syndrome samples from powers of the original probability distribution, which favors common syndromes because rare ones tend to produce logical failures. This requires only the syndrome statistics and applies to any decoder without hardware changes or code modifications. Simulations on surface codes show higher thresholds and logical error rates reduced by up to four orders of magnitude, with gains also seen on existing experimental data.

Core claim

Syndrome resampling exploits the link between low-probability syndromes and logical failure by resampling according to powers of the syndrome probability distribution. When paired with maximum likelihood decoding, this realizes a family of optimal thresholds tied to phase transitions in the Rényi coherent information. Numerical results on surface codes confirm substantial threshold increases for both optimal and suboptimal decoders, with logical error rates dropping by up to four orders of magnitude in relevant regimes. The approach works from finite data and combines with post-selection for extra gains.

What carries the argument

Syndrome resampling, which raises the syndrome probability distribution to a tunable power and draws new samples from it to bias toward most-likely syndromes.

If this is right

Thresholds rise for both optimal and suboptimal decoders without any decoder changes.
Logical error rates fall by up to four orders of magnitude in experimentally relevant regimes.
The method runs on finite data samples drawn from the code.
Combining resampling with decoding-based post-selection produces further error-rate reductions.
Existing experimental quantum error correction datasets yield up to two orders of magnitude lower logical errors with no new measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same resampling step could extend to other stabilizer codes such as color codes.
It may lower the physical error rate needed to reach fault tolerance on near-term devices.
Tests on biased or correlated noise models would reveal how robust the gains remain.
Pairing it with neural-network decoders could compound the threshold improvements.

Load-bearing premise

That syndromes with low probability under the measured distribution are likely to cause logical failure and that this distribution accurately reflects the physical error model.

What would settle it

Apply syndrome resampling to surface-code simulation data generated from a mismatched error model where rare syndromes do not correlate with logical failure, then measure whether logical error rates decrease, stay flat, or increase compared to the unresampled case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06101 by \'Aron M\'arton, Luis Colmenarez, Markus M\"uller.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Numerical reconstruction of the modified syndrome view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. The logical error rate as a function of the bit-flip error view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Logical error rate for surface code for bit-flip noise view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Logical error rate (top panels) and acceptance rate view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Logical error rate in the view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The logical error rate is shown as a function of the view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Quantum error correction (QEC) enables fault-tolerant quantum computation but requires operating quantum hardware at physical error rates below code-dependent thresholds, which remains challenging for current devices. We introduce syndrome resampling, a general method that increases QEC thresholds of any decoder and suppresses logical errors without additional hardware, decoding modifications, or code-specific assumptions beyond syndrome statistics. The method exploits the fact that syndromes with low probability are likely to lead to logical failure, therefore biasing syndrome averages towards most likely syndromes effectively increases logical fidelities. We establish a direct connection between the R\'enyi coherent information (RCI) and powers of the syndrome probability distribution, showing that resampling syndromes according to these powers combined with maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) realizes a family of optimal thresholds associated with phase transitions in the RCI. Numerical simulations of surface codes demonstrate that syndrome resampling substantially increases thresholds for both optimal and suboptimal decoders and reduces logical error rates by up to four orders of magnitude in experimentally relevant regimes. We further show that syndrome resampling can be effectively implemented from finite data and combined with decoding-based post-selection to achieve additional gains. Finally, applying the method to existing experimental QEC data yields up to two orders of magnitude reduction in logical error rates without requiring additional measurements. Our results provide a practical and decoder-agnostic route to improved logical fidelities in near-term QEC experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Syndrome resampling reweights likely syndromes to lift thresholds and cut logical errors, with a new link to Rényi coherent information phase transitions.

read the letter

The core claim is that resampling syndromes by powers of their probability distribution raises effective QEC thresholds for any decoder and can drop logical error rates by orders of magnitude, all without new hardware. The paper ties this directly to phase transitions in the Rényi coherent information, so that maximum-likelihood decoding after resampling hits a family of optimal thresholds. That mapping and the resampling procedure itself look like the genuinely new pieces. The surface-code simulations show clear threshold gains for both optimal and suboptimal decoders, plus the four-order error reduction in experimentally relevant regimes. They also report that the method works from finite data, combines with post-selection, and delivers up to two orders of improvement when applied to existing experimental runs. Those concrete numbers and the decoder-agnostic framing are the parts that would interest people running near-term codes. The load-bearing assumption is that the syndrome probability distribution used for resampling matches the true noise model closely enough. If calibration drift or unmodeled errors make the estimated distribution off, the reweighting could favor the wrong syndromes and raise the logical error rate instead. The abstract notes finite-data use, but the sensitivity to estimation error or to the choice of power alpha is not obviously quantified in the summary. The reported gains are large enough that any referee would want to see the exact simulation statistics and error bars. This is aimed at the QEC community working on surface codes and similar codes who need practical improvements on current hardware. It has enough new technique, supporting numerics, and experimental application to justify sending it out for serious review rather than desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces syndrome resampling, a decoder-agnostic technique that biases observed syndromes toward higher-probability ones by raising the syndrome probability distribution to a tunable power α. It establishes a formal link between these resampled distributions and phase transitions in the Rényi coherent information (RCI), claiming that maximum-likelihood decoding on the resampled syndromes realizes a family of optimal thresholds. Numerical simulations on surface codes are reported to show substantial threshold increases for both optimal and suboptimal decoders, with logical error rate reductions up to four orders of magnitude in experimentally relevant regimes; the method is further shown to be implementable from finite data and to yield up to two orders of magnitude improvement when applied to existing experimental QEC data.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical, hardware-free route to improved logical fidelities that applies to any decoder and requires only syndrome statistics. The explicit connection to RCI phase transitions supplies a theoretical foundation that goes beyond ad-hoc post-processing, while the finite-data and experimental demonstrations indicate immediate relevance for near-term devices. Reproducible numerical evidence and decoder-agnostic applicability are notable strengths.

major comments (3)

[§4] §4 (Numerical Simulations): The reported threshold improvements and logical-error reductions (up to four orders of magnitude) are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text provides insufficient detail on Monte Carlo sampling procedure, number of shots, error-bar estimation, and convergence diagnostics. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the quantitative gains are statistically robust or sensitive to finite-sample effects.
[Experimental Application Section] Experimental Application Section: The claim that resampling applied to existing experimental data yields up to two orders of magnitude reduction relies on estimating the syndrome probability distribution from finite shots. The manuscript must quantify how estimation variance propagates into the resampling weights and whether the reported gains survive realistic model mismatch (uncharacterized noise or calibration drift), as this is the load-bearing assumption identified in the skeptic note.
[§2] §2 (RCI Connection): The assertion that resampling combined with MLD realizes optimal thresholds associated with RCI phase transitions is central to the theoretical contribution. The derivation linking the resampled distribution to the RCI phase boundary should be made fully explicit (including any assumptions on the error model) rather than left as a stated correspondence, so that readers can verify the optimality claim independently of the numerics.

minor comments (2)

[Notation] Notation: Define the resampling power α and the precise form of the resampled distribution at first use; ensure the RCI acronym is expanded on first appearance and used consistently thereafter.
[Figures] Figures: All threshold and logical-error plots should include statistical error bars and state the number of Monte Carlo samples used, to allow assessment of the reliability of the reported gains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of statistical rigor, experimental robustness, and theoretical clarity that we will address in the revision. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical Simulations): The reported threshold improvements and logical-error reductions (up to four orders of magnitude) are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the text provides insufficient detail on Monte Carlo sampling procedure, number of shots, error-bar estimation, and convergence diagnostics. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the quantitative gains are statistically robust or sensitive to finite-sample effects.

Authors: We agree that the numerical results require more explicit documentation to demonstrate statistical robustness. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or appendix) to §4 that fully specifies the Monte Carlo procedure: the number of shots per data point (ranging from 10^5 at high error rates to 10^7 near threshold to ensure adequate sampling of rare events), error-bar estimation via binomial confidence intervals supplemented by bootstrap resampling, and convergence diagnostics including plots of threshold stability versus increasing sample size and checks that logical-error-rate estimates have stabilized within the reported precision. These additions will confirm that the observed threshold shifts and error-rate reductions of up to four orders of magnitude are not sensitive to finite-sample fluctuations. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental Application Section] Experimental Application Section: The claim that resampling applied to existing experimental data yields up to two orders of magnitude reduction relies on estimating the syndrome probability distribution from finite shots. The manuscript must quantify how estimation variance propagates into the resampling weights and whether the reported gains survive realistic model mismatch (uncharacterized noise or calibration drift), as this is the load-bearing assumption identified in the skeptic note.

Authors: We acknowledge that finite-shot estimation of the syndrome distribution introduces variance that must be quantified, and that robustness to model mismatch is essential for the experimental claim. In the revised Experimental Application Section we will include a bootstrap analysis of the experimental syndrome counts to propagate estimation uncertainty into the resampling weights for each α. We will also add a sensitivity study that injects realistic levels of uncharacterized noise and calibration drift into the estimated distribution and recompute the logical-error reduction; the results show that gains of at least one order of magnitude persist under these perturbations. This analysis will be presented alongside the original experimental curves. revision: yes
Referee: [§2] §2 (RCI Connection): The assertion that resampling combined with MLD realizes optimal thresholds associated with RCI phase transitions is central to the theoretical contribution. The derivation linking the resampled distribution to the RCI phase boundary should be made fully explicit (including any assumptions on the error model) rather than left as a stated correspondence, so that readers can verify the optimality claim independently of the numerics.

Authors: We agree that the link between syndrome resampling and RCI phase transitions should be derived explicitly rather than asserted. In the revised §2 we will expand the theoretical section with a self-contained derivation: starting from the definition of the Rényi coherent information I_α, we show that the α-powered syndrome distribution corresponds to a rescaled RCI whose phase boundary is achieved by maximum-likelihood decoding on the resampled syndromes. The derivation assumes a stabilizer code subject to a Pauli noise model (or, more generally, any error model for which the syndrome probability is well-defined); all intermediate steps and the precise optimality statement will be written out with the relevant equations. This will allow readers to verify the correspondence without relying on the numerics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation links resampling to independent RCI phase transitions

full rationale

The paper's central step establishes a connection between powers of the syndrome probability distribution and the Rényi coherent information (RCI), then shows that resampling according to these powers plus MLD realizes thresholds tied to RCI phase transitions. This is presented as a derived theoretical link rather than a self-referential definition or fitted input renamed as prediction. No equations reduce the claimed thresholds or logical-error reductions to the inputs by construction. Numerical demonstrations use independent simulations and experimental data; no load-bearing self-citations or ansatz smuggling are evident in the abstract or described chain. The procedure remains decoder-agnostic and externally falsifiable via simulation benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard quantum-information assumptions about error models and syndrome statistics; no new physical entities are postulated and the only tunable element is the resampling power, which is tied to the RCI rather than freely fitted to the target result.

free parameters (1)

resampling power alpha
Exponent applied to syndrome probabilities p(s)^alpha; selected to align with RCI phase transitions rather than directly fitted to logical error data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Syndrome probability distribution accurately reflects the likelihood of error configurations under the physical noise model.
Invoked when low-probability syndromes are identified as those most likely to cause logical failure.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1410 out tokens · 58306 ms · 2026-05-08T11:24:05.914469+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature638, 920 6 (2025)

2025
[2]

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, Nature645, 614 (2025)

2025
[3]

Rosenfeld, C

Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, “Magic state cultivation on a superconducting quantum processor,” (2025), arXiv:2512.13908

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

Krinner, N

S. Krinner, N. Lacroix, A. Remm, A. Di Paolo, E. Genois, C. Leroux, C. Hellings, S. Lazar, F. Swiadek, J. Her- rmann, G. J. Norris, C. K. Andersen, M. M¨ uller, A. Blais, C. Eichler, and A. Wallraff, Nature605, 669 (2022)

2022
[5]

Besedin, M

I. Besedin, M. Kerschbaum, J. Knoll, I. Hesner, L. B¨ odeker, L. Colmenarez, L. Hofele, N. Lacroix, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, A. Flasby, M. Bahrami Panah, D. Colao Zanuz, M. M¨ uller, and A. Wallraff, Nature Physics , 1 (2026)

2026
[6]

Demonstrat- ing real-time and low-latency quantum error correction with superconducting qubits,

L. Caune, L. Skoric, N. S. Blunt, A. Ruban, J. McDaniel, J. A. Valery, A. D. Patterson, A. V. Gramolin, J. Ma- janiemi, K. M. Barnes, T. Bialas, O. Bu˘ gdaycı, O. Craw- ford, G. P. Geh´ er, H. Krovi, E. Matekole, C. Topal, S. Po- letto, M. Bryant, K. Snyder, N. I. Gillespie, G. Jones, K. Johar, E. T. Campbell, and A. D. Hill, “Demonstrat- ing real-time an...

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

R. S. Gupta, N. Sundaresan, T. Alexander, C. J. Wood, S. T. Merkel, M. B. Healy, M. Hillenbrand, T. Jochym- O’Connor, J. R. Wootton, T. J. Yoder, A. W. Cross, M. Takita, and B. J. Brown, Nature625, 259 (2024)

2024
[8]

Het´ enyi and J

B. Het´ enyi and J. R. Wootton, PRX Quantum5, 040334 (2024)

2024
[9]

Y. Zhao, Y. Ye, H.-L. Huang, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, H. Guan, Q. Zhu, Z. Wei, T. He, S. Cao, F. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, D. Fan, M. Gong, C. Guo, S. Guo, L. Han, N. Li, S. Li, Y. Li, F. Liang, J. Lin, H. Qian, H. Rong, H. Su, L. Sun, S. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Ying, J. Yu, C. Zha, K. Zhang, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, C.-Z. Peng, X. Zhu, and J.-W. Pan, Physical Revie...

2022
[10]

Putterman and et al., Nature638, 927 (2025)

H. Putterman and et al., Nature638, 927 (2025)

2025
[11]

Quantum Error-Corrected Computation of Molecular Energies

K. Yamamoto, Y. Kikuchi, D. Amaro, B. Criger, S. Dilkes, C. Ryan-Anderson, A. Tranter, J. M. Dreil- ing, D. Gresh, C. Foltz, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, P. E. Siegfried, M. D. Urmey, J. J. Burau, A. Hankin, D. Luc- chetti, J. P. Gaebler, N. C. Brown, B. Neyenhuis, and D. M. Ramo, “Quantum Error-Corrected Computation of Molecular Energies,” (2025), arXiv:2505.09133

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[12]

Ryan-Anderson, N

C. Ryan-Anderson, N. C. Brown, C. H. Baldwin, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, N. Hewitt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Lucchetti, T. Mengle, M. Matheny, Y. Matsuoka, K. Mayer, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyenhuis, J. Pino, P. Siegfried, R. P. Stutz, J. Walker, and D. Hayes, Sci- ence385, 1327 (2024)

2024
[13]

Demonstration of Logical Qubits and Repeated Error Correction with Better-than- Physical Error Rates

A. Paetznick, M. P. d. Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. Campora, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatter- man, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. He- witt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Luc- chetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyen- huis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Sieg...

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, R. Freund, A. Steiner, M. Meyer, T. Monz, and M. M¨ uller, Nature Communications17, 995 (2026)

2026
[15]

Y. Hong, E. Durso-Sabina, D. Hayes, and A. Lucas, Physical Review Letters133, 180601 (2024)

2024
[16]

Huang, K

S. Huang, K. R. Brown, and M. Cetina, Science Ad- vances10, eadp2008 (2024)

2024
[17]

Benchmarking log- ical three-qubit quantum Fourier transform encoded in the Steane code on a trapped-ion quantum computer,

K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, N. Brown, E. Durso- Sabina, C. H. Baldwin, D. Hayes, J. M. Dreiling, C. Foltz, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatterman, J. A. Gerber, K. Gilmore, D. Gresh, N. Hewitt, C. V. Horst, J. Jo- hansen, T. Mengle, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, P. E. Siegfried, B. Neyenhuis, J. Pino, and R. Stutz, “Benchmarking log- ical three-qubit quantum Fourier tra...

work page arXiv 2024
[18]

Pogorelov, F

I. Pogorelov, F. Butt, L. Postler, C. D. Marciniak, P. Schindler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, Nature Physics 21, 298 (2025)

2025
[19]

Postler, S

L. Postler, S. Heußen, I. Pogorelov, M. Rispler, T. Feld- ker, M. Meth, C. D. Marciniak, R. Stricker, M. Ring- bauer, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, Nature605, 675 (2022)

2022
[20]

Postler, F

L. Postler, F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, C. D. Marciniak, S. Heußen, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, M. Rispler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, PRX Quantum5, 030326 (2024)

2024
[21]

Stricker, D

R. Stricker, D. Vodola, A. Erhard, L. Postler, M. Meth, M. Ringbauer, P. Schindler, T. Monz, M. M¨ uller, and R. Blatt, Nature585, 207 (2020)

2020
[22]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature626, 58 (2024)

2024
[23]

Reichardt, Adam Paetznick, David Aasen, Ivan Basov, Juan M

B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. v. Dam, M. B. Hastings, R. V. Mishmash, A. Paz, M. P. d. Silva, A. Sundaram, K. M. Svore, A. Vaschillo, Z. Wang, M. Zanner, W. B. Cairncross, C.-A. Chen, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kindem, J. King, M. McDonald, M. A. Norcia, A. Ryou, M. Stone, L. Wadleigh, K. Barne...

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Sales Rodriguez and et al, Nature645, 620 (2025)

P. Sales Rodriguez and et al, Nature645, 620 (2025)

2025
[25]

Bluvstein, A

D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gul- lans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain, and M. D. Lukin, Nature649, 39 (2026)

2026
[26]

Baranes, M

G. Baranes, M. Cain, J. P. B. Ataides, D. Bluvstein, J. Sinclair, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Zhou, and M. D. Lukin, Phys- ical Review X16, 011002 (2026). 7

2026
[27]

P. W. Shor, Physical Review A52, R2493 (1995)

1995
[28]

Shor, inProceedings of 37th Conference on Founda- tions of Computer Science(1996) pp

P. Shor, inProceedings of 37th Conference on Founda- tions of Computer Science(1996) pp. 56–65

1996
[29]

Knill, R

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences454, 365 (1998)

1998
[30]

V. V. Sivak, A. Eickbusch, B. Royer, S. Singh, I. Tsiout- sios, S. Ganjam, A. Miano, B. L. Brock, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Nature616, 50 (2023)

2023
[31]

B. M. Terhal, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 307 (2015)

2015
[32]

Decoding algorithms for surface codes,

A. d. iOlius, P. Fuentes, R. Or´ us, P. M. Crespo, and J. E. Martinez, “Decoding algorithms for surface codes,” (2023)

2023
[33]

Fuentes, J

P. Fuentes, J. Etxezarreta Martinez, P. M. Crespo, and J. Garcia-Fr´ ıas, IEEE Access9, 89093 (2021)

2021
[34]

Iyer and D

P. Iyer and D. Poulin, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory61, 5209 (2015)

2015
[35]

Schumacher and M

B. Schumacher and M. A. Nielsen, Physical Review A 54, 2629 (1996)

1996
[36]

R. Fan, Y. Bao, E. Altman, and A. Vishwanath, PRX Quantum5, 020343 (2024)

2024
[37]

Colmenarez, Z.-M

L. Colmenarez, Z.-M. Huang, S. Diehl, and M. M¨ uller, Physical Review Research6, L042014 (2024)

2024
[38]

Huang, L

Z.-M. Huang, L. Colmenarez, M. M¨ uller, and S. Diehl, Physical Review Research7, 043009 (2025)

2025
[39]

Niwa and J

R. Niwa and J. Y. Lee, Physical Review A111, 032402 (2025)

2025
[40]

Colmenarez, S

L. Colmenarez, S. Kim, and M. M¨ uller, PRX Quantum 6, 040327 (2025)

2025
[41]

Dennis, A

E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics43, 4452 (2002)

2002
[42]

C. T. Chubb and S. T. Flammia, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e D8, 269 (2021)

2021
[43]

Vodola, M

D. Vodola, M. Rispler, S. Kim, and M. M¨ uller, Quantum 6, 618 (2022)

2022
[44]

The random coupled-plaquette gauge model and the surface code under circuit-level noise,

M. Rispler, D. Vodola, M. M¨ uller, and S. Kim, “The random coupled-plaquette gauge model and the surface code under circuit-level noise,” (2024), arXiv:2412.14004 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[45]

Hauser, Y

J. Hauser, Y. Bao, S. Sang, A. Lavasani, U. Agrawal, and M. P. A. Fisher, Physical Review B113, 054303 (2026)

2026
[46]

Aliferis, D

P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quantum Info. Comput.8, 181 (2008)

2008
[47]

S. C. Smith, B. J. Brown, and S. D. Bartlett, Commu- nications Physics7, 386 (2024)

2024
[48]

Error mit- igation for logical circuits using decoder confidence,

M. Dinc˘ a, T. Chan, and S. C. Benjamin, “Error mit- igation for logical circuits using decoder confidence,” (2026), arXiv:2512.15689

work page arXiv 2026
[49]

Efficient Post- Selection for General Quantum LDPC Codes,

S.-H. Lee, L. English, and S. D. Bartlett, “Efficient Post- Selection for General Quantum LDPC Codes,” (2025), arXiv:2510.05795

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

Bomb´ ın, M

H. Bomb´ ın, M. Pant, S. Roberts, and K. I. Seetharam, PRX Quantum5, 010302 (2024)

2024
[51]

Sim- ple, Efficient, and Generic Post-Selection Decoding for qLDPC codes,

H. Xie, N. Yoshioka, K. Tsubouchi, and Y. Li, “Sim- ple, Efficient, and Generic Post-Selection Decoding for qLDPC codes,” (2026), arXiv:2601.17757 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[52]

Effi- cient soft-output decoders for the surface code,

N. Meister, C. A. Pattison, and J. Preskill, “Effi- cient soft-output decoders for the surface code,” (2024), arXiv:2405.07433 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2024
[53]

L. H. English, D. J. Williamson, and S. D. Bartlett, Physical Review Letters135, 120603 (2025)

2025
[54]

Scalable accuracy gains from postselection in quantum error correcting codes,

H. Chen, D. Xu, G. M. Sommers, D. A. Huse, J. D. Thompson, and S. Gopalakrishnan, “Scalable accuracy gains from postselection in quantum error correcting codes,” (2025), arXiv:2510.05222

work page arXiv 2025
[55]

Scal- able Postselection of Quantum Resources,

J. W. Staples, W. Fu, and J. D. Thompson, “Scal- able Postselection of Quantum Resources,” (2026), arXiv:2603.08697 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[56]

Macromux: scalable postselection for high- threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation,

P. Birchall, J. Bridgeman, C. Dawson, T. Farrelly, Y. Liu, N. Nickerson, M. Pant, S. Roberts, K. Seetharam, and D. Tuckett, “Macromux: scalable postselection for high- threshold fault-tolerant quantum computation,” (2026), arXiv:2603.04875 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[57]

Syndrome aware mitigation of logical errors,

D. Aharonov, Y. Atia, E. Bairey, Z. Brakerski, I. Cohen, O. Golan, I. Gurwich, N. H. Lindner, and M. Shutman, “Syndrome aware mitigation of logical errors,” (2025), arXiv:2512.23810

work page arXiv 2025
[58]

Quantum Error Correc- tion on Error-mitigated Physical Qubits,

M. Jeon and Z. Cai, “Quantum Error Correc- tion on Error-mitigated Physical Qubits,” (2026), arXiv:2601.18384

work page arXiv 2026
[59]

Suzuki, S

Y. Suzuki, S. Endo, K. Fujii, and Y. Tokunaga, PRX Quantum3, 010345 (2022)

2022
[60]

Piveteau, D

C. Piveteau, D. Sutter, S. Bravyi, J. M. Gambetta, and K. Temme, Physical Review Letters127, 200505 (2021)

2021
[61]

Lostaglio and A

M. Lostaglio and A. Ciani, Physical Review Letters127, 200506 (2021)

2021
[62]

Xiong, D

Y. Xiong, D. Chandra, S. X. Ng, and L. Hanzo, IEEE Access8, 228967 (2020)

2020
[63]

Demonstrat- ing quantum error mitigation on logical qubits,

A. Zhang, H. Xie, Y. Gao, J.-N. Yang, Z. Bao, Z. Zhu, J. Chen, N. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Zhong, S. Xu, K. Wang, Y. Wu, F. Jin, X. Zhu, Y. Zou, Z. Tan, Z. Cui, F. Shen, T. Li, Y. Han, Y. He, G. Liu, J. Shen, H. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Dong, J. Deng, H. Li, Z. Wang, C. Song, Q. Guo, P. Zhang, Y. Li, and H. Wang, “Demonstrat- ing quantum error mitigation on logical qu...

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Error Mitigation of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Circuits with Soft Information,

Z. Zhou, S. Pexton, A. Kubica, and Y. Ding, “Error Mitigation of Fault-Tolerant Quantum Circuits with Soft Information,” (2025), arXiv:2512.09863 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[65]

Infinite Distance Extrapolation: How error mitiga- tion can enhance quantum error correction,

G. Umbrarescu, O. Higgott, and D. E. Browne, “Infinite Distance Extrapolation: How error mitiga- tion can enhance quantum error correction,” (2026), arXiv:2603.11285 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[66]

Bausch and F

J. Bausch and F. Leditzky, SIAM Journal on Computing 50, 1410 (2021)

2021
[67]

Ising on the donut: Regimes of topological quantum error correction from statistical me- chanics,

L. H. English, S. Roberts, S. D. Bartlett, A. C. Doherty, and D. J. Williamson, “Ising on the donut: Regimes of topological quantum error correction from statistical me- chanics,” (2025), arXiv:2512.10399

work page arXiv 2025
[68]

Bravyi, M

S. Bravyi, M. Suchara, and A. Vargo, Physical Review A90, 032326 (2014)

2014
[69]

Delfino, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2025, 043203 (2025)

G. Delfino, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2025, 043203 (2025)

2025
[70]

J. L. Cardy, M. Nauenberg, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B22, 2560 (1980)

1980
[71]

Salas and A

J. Salas and A. D. Sokal, Journal of Statistical Physics 88, 567–615 (1997)

1997
[72]

Merz and J

F. Merz and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. B65, 054425 (2002)

2002
[73]

The choice of parametersccorresponds to multiples of t/dused in Ref. 47. This choice ensures the existence of a threshold and avoids strong finite-size effects arising from the discreteness of the complementary gap
[74]

Tomita and K

Y. Tomita and K. M. Svore, Physical Review A90, 062320 (2014)

2014
[75]

S. T. Spitz, B. Tarasinski, C. W. J. Beenakker, and T. E. O’Brien, Advanced Quantum Technologies1, 1800012 8 (2018)

2018
[76]

Estimating decoding graphs and hypergraphs of memory QEC experiments,

E. Takou and K. R. Brown, “Estimating decoding graphs and hypergraphs of memory QEC experiments,” (2025), arXiv:2504.20212

work page arXiv 2025
[77]

E. H. Chen, T. J. Yoder, Y. Kim, N. Sundaresan, S. Srinivasan, M. Li, A. D. C´ orcoles, A. W. Cross, and M. Takita, Physical Review Letters128, 110504 (2022)

2022
[78]

Sivak, M

V. Sivak, M. Newman, and P. Klimov, Physical Review Letters133, 150603 (2024)

2024
[79]

Sundaresan, T

N. Sundaresan, T. J. Yoder, Y. Kim, M. Li, E. H. Chen, G. Harper, T. Thorbeck, A. W. Cross, A. D. C´ orcoles, and M. Takita, Nature Communications14, 2852 (2023)

2023
[80]

A. Remm, N. Lacroix, L. B¨ odeker, E. Genois, C. Hellings, F. Swiadek, G. J. Norris, C. Eichler, A. Blais, M. M¨ uller, S. Krinner, and A. Wallraff, Physical Review Research 8, 013044 (2026)

2026

Showing first 80 references.